Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck

100 Best Companies To Work For 534

Posted by michael
from the LNUX-not-among-them dept.
Misha writes "Fortune.com is publishing a list of 100 Best Companies to Work for. Quite a few tech companies, with a few semi-startups, like Xilinx, who 'protected its employees from a nasty downturn in the industry by refusing to abandon a no-layoff policy. Workers took a 6 percent pay cut, but the CEO led the way with a 20 percent cut.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

100 Best Companies To Work For

Comments Filter:
  • Ironic (Score:3, Funny)

    by dup_account (469516) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @05:59PM (#5035533)
    Does this make today's Dilbert about the 5% bonus ironic?
  • by Lxy (80823) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:00PM (#5035538) Journal
    ADOBE is a startup now? Yeah, sure, uh huh......
  • 20% pay cut... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BJH (11355) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:04PM (#5035573)

    I just don't get this bullshit about CEOs telling their employees to take a pay cut, and trying to convince them it's OK by cutting their own pay.

    20% off of (say) $1 million still leaves $800K - whereas 6% off $50K leaves you with $47K. The CEO can still buy that beach house, but you'll have to cut back on essentials. Thanks for nothing.
    • Re:20% pay cut... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThinkingGuy (551764) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:27PM (#5035701) Homepage
      OK, I'll bite: Using these numbers, the CEO starts out earning 20 times as much as the $50K employees. After the cuts, he's earning 17 times as much.
      The CEO's 20% cut equates to $200,000. That's how much he's cutting the company's expenses. It would take 67 of those $50K workers, each taking a 6% pay cut, to cut expenses by the same amount.
      So this CEO, who normally contributes 20 times as much, is in this case contributing 67 times as much toward keeping everyone from suffering a 100% pay cut (unemployment).
      Now, whether the CEO's yearly contribution to the company is actually worth 20 times the average employees', is of course, debatable :)
      As far as "cutting back on essentials," that's easier to do with a 6% pay cut than with a 100% pay cut.
      • the CEO starts out earning 20 times as much as the $50K employees...

        So this CEO, who normally contributes 20 times as much

        I do not buy into the assertion that because a CEO is earning 20x, he's contributing 20x. Nor would I buy into its converse (the assertion that he's getting 20x because he contributes 20x). CEOs are grossly overpaid, and the reason is simply that there's a good ol' boys network of MBAs networking their way to these obscene salaries, and company boards that are so lacking in vision that the boldest thing they can do is burn money by hiring the most expensive person possible for the ceo role. This is one of the most fundamentally wasteful and distasteful facets of US biz, and must change as a prerequisite to the average American deriving security and self respect from being in the workforce. As in may other cross sections of the workforce, some CEOs are visionaries while others are flat out idiots... but unlike most other sectors, there is virtually no correlation whatsoever between CEO salary and CEO merit. One obvious example is Fiorina but there are many others, and most aren't even high-profile in the media. Somewhere along the line people have somehow elevated CEOs to the status of gods, where they don't even think of questioning how value is truly being created and will simply go by the numbers. Sure, the CEO has the power to fire his workers... but you still won't find my nose up his rear end.

        .

        • by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:42PM (#5037212) Homepage
          I do not buy into the assertion that because a CEO is earning 20x, he's contributing 20x.

          Really? And what measurements did you make in order to come to that conclusion? A good CEO is worth every penny he or she is paid, while bad ones aren't worth a single penny or a single share of stock. Good CEO's can drive the company to new business, higher profits, and allow their employees to share in that wealth.

          Further, before you denigrate all CEO's, what about the lowly guy (or group) that came up with an idea, marketed it, and formed a hugely successful business from it. It's their company; they risked a lot to make it, and worked very hard for it. Who are you to dictate to them what's "reasonable"?

          I for one am a bit tired of the constant vitriol on /. against anyone in the corporate management structure. For every corrupt, lying, stealing, cheating CEO out there there are hundreds of hardworking, dedicated, worth-every-penny CEO's that go to the mat for their company every day. If you don't think so then why don't you try going out and forming your own company and see how easy it is... ...just like I did. Anybody can complain about a situation. It takes someone with balls to actually do something about it.
    • Re:20% pay cut... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:28PM (#5035716)

      If you have to cut back on essentials because you're making less than $50K, you need to learn some damn spending habits.

      P.S. an XBox is not an essential.
      • Re:20% pay cut... (Score:5, Informative)

        by blincoln (592401) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:41PM (#5035816) Homepage Journal
        If you have to cut back on essentials because you're making less than $50K, you need to learn some damn spending habits.

        It depends on where you live. I went on vacation to SF this last October, and judging from the rents I saw you'd pretty much be homeless if you were making less than $50k.
    • Re:20% pay cut... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ivan256 (17499)
      It's not okay because he cut his own pay too, it's okay because it means that now you're making $47k instead of $0. Would you prefer that nobody took a pay cut and you lost your job, because 90% of his salary doesn't even come close to the amount of money saved by not paying 6% of the rest of the companies salaries. His pay cut may be a drop in the bucket of his net worth, but his salary is a drop in the payroll bucket for the entire company.

      At least he's making the gesture.
    • Unless I'm mistaken, the median in the Bay Area is 100k, so 6% of 100k leaves you with $94k...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, there are some dead beat CEOs out there, but some of them earn it.....

      Our CEO has been working for minimum wage for 18 months (he only takes that so he can keep his insurance coverage). He's traveling 3.5 weeks a month and if we are a little short of cash at the end of the month will write a personal check. He also bought all the engineers new high end workstations on his personal credit card. He works way harder and longer hours than any engineer I've met in my 17 years in the biz.

      If this company takes off, he deserves every penny and then some. When you say that you want a regular paycheck and to sleep in your own bed each night, you give up the right to complain about all those folks taking serious risks with both their $ and personal time.
  • by EnlightenmentFan (617608) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:04PM (#5035574) Homepage Journal
    Woo hoo. Dance, monkey-boy, dance.
    • by CrystalFalcon (233559) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:31PM (#5036302) Homepage
      Yes, I expected to see Microsoft on the list. I am a former Microsoft employee and I have _never_, _ever_, worked for another company that cared so much for its employees.

      Rant about the image of the leadership all you want; in the meantime, those who care about results can continue to interview what people _working_ there think.
      • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:16PM (#5037023)
        I am a former Microsoft employee and I have _never_, _ever_, worked for another company that cared so much for its employees.

        Due to their unique grip on the marketplace, Microsoft is able to extract more money out of their customers per employee than almost any other company in the world. Of course they can afford the luxury of treating their employees very well.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:05PM (#5035577)
    5. Adobe Systems

    After graduating from college (3 years ago), I sent my resume as a PDF to Adobe. They wrote back and asked for it in Word format because they didn't know how to read PDF files....

    • To be fair(er?) to Adobe:
      About 5 years ago, when I was in college, I interviewed on-campus with Adobe. As part of moving to 2nd round interviews, they specifically asked for my resume in PDF and gave me a free fully copy of Acrobat with which to make a conversion. (it was a copy of Acrobat 3, Acrobat 4 was about to come out so they were dumping free copies of 3.x on students)
    • Re:5. adobe systems (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jordandeamattson (261036) <jordandm@nOsPaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:33PM (#5036321) Homepage


      Well, I am a manager at Adobe Systems, and I won't accept resumes in anything except PDF. If you want to get in the door, show me that you can figure out how to use our tools to reach me. And for those that don't have a full copy of Acrobat, we have an online service (free for sample use) that allows you to create a PDF. And I have been know to give copies of Acrobat to high-quality candidates to see what they would do with it. Think of it as an aptitude test.

      • I work at Adobe too, though not as a manager. You have to admit that HR does a lot of stuff in Microsoft Word. You hardly ever get anything in PDF from them. When I was a new hire two years ago, I would get invited to new-hire orientation and other meet-me events, and everything was in Microsoft Word. Since I didn't have Office installed at the time, I'd happily ask them for a PDF version, but they'd hardly ever send one back.
    • by DrCode (95839) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:12PM (#5036995)
      Good one.

      I once applied to a Linux company, sent them an ASCII resume, and was told the same thing.

      OTOH, Microsoft, I believe, asks for resume's in text format. Go figure.
  • by phorm (591458) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:07PM (#5035588) Journal
    I haven't heard of over half these companies. While the "we won't fire you" stand would get me a thumbs-up for the mentioned company, I think the actual job quality would probably depend on occupation. I know a lot of jobs where I've heard that it's nice to be a guy on the line, or a clerk, etc - but being the tech is an unholy pain in the ass. Also, what are the criteria for this list?
    Personally, I'd like to see a list that's occupationalized (IT jobs), and then perhaps regionized, but it's better than nothing I suppose.

    Oh, and on a side note, did anyone else get a half-dozen JavaScript errors loading this page (IE6)?
    • Also, what are the criteria for this list?

      From the link titled Methodology (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/bestcompanies/arti cles/0,15114,403820,00.html):

      To select this year's list we surveyed a random sample of employees from 269 candidate companies--more than 1,000 firms were considered--to get their opinions about their workplaces. A total of 40,713 employees responded to the survey (the Great Place to Work Trust Index, an instrument created by the Great Place to Work Institute in San Francisco). Nearly half gave us additional written comments. We also asked each of the companies to fill out a questionnaire describing its HR policies and workplace culture. In scoring the responses, we placed the greatest weight on the employee responses (two-thirds of the total), with the remainder being our evaluation of the company's benefits and practices. If you think your company should be on the list, send a brief explanation about why to us at 100best@greatplacetowork.com.
      As additional note, they don't include companies that are going through mergers (my company was hoping to make the list this year but was disqualified because of it).
  • by limekiller4 (451497) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:07PM (#5035589) Homepage
    In the current economic climate, this is sort of like having a "100 Best Girls to Have Sex With" list. Yeah, Alyssa Milano might very well be on it but she's not hiring, so who cares?
  • by JPhule (170787) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:12PM (#5035607)
    I couldn't get through to the site, but I'm pretty sure they forgot the best one: The Government.
    • Re:Forgot one... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fobbman (131816)
      President Bush just put A76 on the Federal Register, meaning that between 425,000 and 850,000 Federal jobs will be outsourced in the next 10 years. Ten percent of those jobs will be outsourced in FY2003, including jobs that have access to your sensitive personal information.

      Thanks, George.

      • Re:Forgot one... (Score:5, Informative)

        by ZeLonewolf (197271) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:41PM (#5036778) Homepage
        > Thanks, George.

        Ummm...

        OMB Circular A-76 was put out in 1983 (That's 20 years and three presidents ago. The idea is that private competitive industry can do things far cheaper and more effectively than the government can, and that idea has changed little in 20 years. In fact the biggest federal workforce reduction since before the cold war was done in '94...

        I am a federal employee myself (engineer for the Navy), and we pay certain companies X dollars a year to provide janitors, security guards, secretaries, and the guy that gets tapes for you in the tape library. In addition, we have a number of contract jobs that are highly skilled technical people that work with us on certain projects. Outsourced jobs that have access to sensitive information have to go through the same rigorous security screening as regular employees do. The services of sweeping floor or secretary-ing or what have you go through a competitive bidding process, so the job gets done for the best price.

        The government works for the people, and privatizing federal jobs saves MONEY. Not to mention, if you privatize someone's job, sure, they lose their job...but someone else gains a job...so it all works out... and even if you make the argument that privatized gov't jobs are replaced by a lesser number of private industry jobs, then the point has been proven that the government was working inefficiently. Not to mention, in tight times, you can generally fire contract employees with no problem...not so great for them, but fine and dandy to the taxpayers that pay them.

        The federal government is a great company to work for...virtually garaunteed raises, awesome job security, and (at least in my experience) very flexible work conditions. However, it's also grossly inefficient since as a general rule there isn't any competition. New competition rules for some sectors are starting to change that, but by and large it holds true, and in the government, when employees run out of stuff to do, they continued to get paid to do nothing...where I work, the labor rate is $160,000 per man-year, which is WELL above the average salary...
  • Who really cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:15PM (#5035620)
    What bothers me about this list is that anly 269 companies applied to be on the list. Making the top 100 out of 269 isn't really that impressive to me. About 40% of the companies who spend the maney and take the time to apply for this distinction make the list. This is definately not a very elite list. In fact, I think the only reason that you would apply for this list is if you feel that you have to have proof that your company treats its employees well. What ever happened to good old word of mouth? I guess it's easier to just buy your reputation by applying for these lists.
  • Read the summaries (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jerrytcow (66962) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:15PM (#5035621) Homepage
    Summaries like this say it all...

    The supermarket chain lets workers take off to volunteer and to care for sick pets

    How cool is that? I'll bet there aren't many companies that will give you time off to take care of your dog when it gets sick. Until it was law many didn't even offer maternity leave. Some companies just get it. Treat your employees well, and they'll be happier and treat the customers well.

    • Treating your employess well? What a concept! You mean you shouldn't write them paychecks that bounce? And you mean to tell me I should actually pay their health insurance with the money I take out of their paychecks? That's a riot! Naw, I think I'll stick to the age old "a good boning every now and again keeps the workers in line". It's worked for the past 50 years for Casket Shells [casketshells.com], and it'll work for another 50.
  • Hewlett Packard? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jhaberman (246905) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:21PM (#5035645)
    Anyone else notice that glaringly absent from this poll is my employer Hewlett-Packard? Agilent Tech is on there, because they got spun off before the whole massive downslide. They still live the HP Way. Whereas the parent company, and developer of the damn thing, has totally abandoned it. Ask any employee who has been here for more than a few years and they'll tell you the same thing.

    Carly is driving us directly into the ground... In my humble opinion. When I started 4 years ago everyone I told said "Oooo... I heard thats a good place to work!". I agreed. But it has slid down ever since.

    *sigh*

    Jason

    • by Anonymous Coward
      You're fired.

      Love, Carly
    • by Tattva (53901) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:32PM (#5035752) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps they know of the curse of the DEC. Now that HP has absorbed Compaq they have also taken on the mantle of the owner of Digital Equipment's corpse, whose wretched santeria can fell the mightiest of companies.

      Okay, just kidding. Anyway, as a former HP employee and current Agilent employee ... I think I'll just keep my mouth shut.

    • Actually I would have been more surprised if they had been present on this list. Since Carly took over dealing with HP has been a pain in the ass. Everyone I know there has left or been layed off. Now that the merger is through it is worse. The HP Way left with Agilent and was passed on from Agilent to Philips. When Compaq and HP merged it was just the nail in the coffin.

      I hear Agilent is hiring you could always try over there ;)
    • I also work at HP and agree with you. I looked for HP on the list, and it appears somebody is starting to notice that the HP Way is not the way of HP anymore. Nowadays it just feels like any other old corporation, and Carly is not helping much as many of the workers dislike her.

      It has slid down hill quit a bit from 5 years ago. I have worked here about as long as you have, and can say that even from then, things have really gone downhill. And, I think the ranking is correct, HP does not deserve to be on the list (anymore).
    • Re:Hewlett Packard? (Score:2, Informative)

      by tomcode (261182)
      My office is on Page Mill Road, with HP on one side and Agilent on the other. The Agilent building is empty, HP is bustling. Where would I rather work?
    • When I started 4 years ago everyone I told said "Oooo... I heard thats a good place to work!". I agreed. But it has slid down ever since.

      Oh oh. It's also coincident with _your_ start. Guess you're making a bigger difference than you ever imagined, eh?

    • Re:Hewlett Packard? (Score:3, Informative)

      by blair1q (305137)
      Worse, they used to be in the top five in this poll year after year.

      One day someone with a strong memory will write the whole story of how one of the greatest companies in America went completely off the track.
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:21PM (#5035647) Homepage Journal
    In this tech depression, a list of the 100 Worse may be more useful. They may be more forgiving of the fact that a resume only lists 30 buzzwords instead of the expected 50. (That is assuming they know of their ranking.)
  • Where's HP? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pup5 (543611) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:22PM (#5035654)
    And Hewlett-Packard Company, once the proud purveyors of the HPWay, are nowhere to be found in the top 100. This is an accurate reflection of the state of affairs, but sad.

    Another employee-centric company culture falls prey to the narrow-minded concepts tought in today's business schools.
  • by Dr Caleb (121505) <`thedarkknight' `at' `hushmail.com'> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:23PM (#5035656) Homepage Journal
    A friend of mine got a job there doing a little programming (over me :( ) and the first thing they did was take his order for his new bike (no it wasn't a V-Rod).

    He was given a tour of the factory two weeks after he started, and picked it up while he was there.

    I hear it the benefits really suck too :)

  • by archeopterix (594938) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:23PM (#5035658) Journal
    Each of the companies employs >1000 people. I think it's best to work for a much smaller company, one when you know all coworkers and the CEO says hello to you everyday. I work for such a company and just smile at my friends telling horror stories from the Dilbert side of the reality.
  • by MrDog (307202)
    People say Linux is so great... why isn't it on the list? How can it get any better if people don't really like to work there?
  • Workers took a 6 percent pay cut, but the CEO led the way with a 20 percent cut.

    This reminds me of the Chris Rock OJ routine where he talks about divorce (I'm paraphrasing): If I have $20 million, and you take half, but that's ok, I still have $10 million. Now, if I'm makin' $32,000 then... Hell, I'm not moving back with my momma just because you don't love me no more.

    (hm... butchered that one pretty bad)
  • by krs-one (470715) <vic.openglforums@com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:27PM (#5035707) Homepage Journal
    On each of the pages, there are % Minorities and % Women for each company. Why?! Why should this matter. Is this not racist or sexist? Certainly if there was a % White, it would be considered so. Why should the color of a persons skin or their sex be considered over how well they perform their job?

    -Vic
    • Well if there is a company which has X,000 employees the statistical chances of the %'s being well out and the firm choosing their employees regardless of race and sex, are very very low.
      • Well if there is a company which has X,000 employees the statistical chances of the %'s being well out and the firm choosing their employees regardless of race and sex, are very very low.

        You're assuming that the percentage of women or minorities eligible and willing to fill positions at a given company is approximately equal to the percentage of men or whites eligibile and willing. This is not necessarily true. Many minorities are of a lower socio-economic class and are therefor not as employable. One doesn't want one's stockbroker to be white trash or blasting rap music out his office windows.

        Many women don't particularly seem to care as much about their careers in relation to the rest of their lives as most men do. I know that most of the women I have as friends certainly don't: we men consider our jobs the centre of our lives, while women tend not to. There is also the issue of aptitude--it appears that men may have a certain amount of additional ability in some fields (e.g. technology), while women have more ability in others.

        Thus the chances are actually quite high that depending on the position and industry, the percentage of men, women, blacks, asians, arabs, caucasians or Hindus is likely to vary.

    • Why should the color of a persons skin or their sex be considered over how well they perform their job?

      Good question, Vic. The answer is this: diversity. Consider this: Back when most of the top leadership of the biggest companies were getting their MBAs, the corporate culture was very different than it is today. Real or imagined (or maybe even hyped in some cases), it was shown through numerous studies that men made more than women and whites made more than minorities. This led to a backlash by women and minorities (probably deservedly so in many cases, but that's not the point). The rallying cry of "Diversity is a Good Thing(tm)" was overwhelming.

      That was then, this is now but we still have people in upper management positions who think this way. I suspect (hope?) that within a few generations, more insightful business leaders (male/female/black/white/latino/etc.) will grasp the concept that we're beyond mandated diversity now. Unfortunately, there will always be bigots and whenever one is found, it will attract headlines. We can only hope that as society evolves, the bigots will in time breed themselves out of existence.

      --K.
      • by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @11:01PM (#5037323) Homepage
        Why should the color of a persons skin or their sex be considered over how well they perform their job?


        Good question, Vic. The answer is this: diversity.

        No, the real answer is "racial quotas", which is the total opposite of a meritocracy. Companies are rampantly reviewing their workforces to make sure they've got "enough of the minorities" to keep the lawsuits away. Is this really the best we can do? Whatever happened to "this person is the best one for the job because of their superlative skills" instead of "we're hiring you because you're black"?

        Whatever good intentions there were when "affirmative action" was put in place have long since degenerated into reverse discrimination these days. Discrimination of any type, whether it's in favor of or against minorities, is a bad thing and is actually illegal, although in this liberal day and age you'd have a hard time getting any judge (who wants to keep their job) to rule in such a manner.
    • by necrognome (236545) on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @01:50AM (#5038085) Homepage
      Imagine that you, a lone geek, apply for the "webmaster" position on the varsity football team. If you've never been in such a situation, I know it's difficult to do so, but try to imagine what it would be like. Would you feel "safe" in the lockerroom or at a keg party?

      What I can tell you is that certain potential employees look at the %minority/female statistics not as an indicator of how "diverse" a company is, but as a sign that a significant number of minorities and women felt comfortable in joining the company.

      Your chances of running into minorities (if you are white) outside of work are not that high, with the exception of the prominent metro areas in this country. But if you take the attitude displayed in this thred towards some of the women in your life, you really shouldn't wonder why you're home alone on a Friday/Saturday night.
    • On each of the pages, there are % Minorities and % Women for each company. Why?! Why should this matter. Is this not racist or sexist? Certainly if there was a % White, it would be considered so. Why should the color of a persons skin or their sex be considered over how well they perform their job?

      Women make the workplace more interesting. Even if you aren't going to sleep around the office, a little inter-gender tension keeps people on their toes, and even encourages some of the geekiest to bathe. Plus, it often means birthdays and holidays actually get celebrated.

      Ditto for minorities. Most people spend more time with co-workers than their children - anything that changes the self-segregation in America is a good thing, and multi-lingual workplaces seem a lot more interesting to me. I've had fun trying to decode C-code comments in French...

      Plus, if there are a large number of women in a company, women will feel more comfortable and more productive. Ditto for minorities. There's a lot of emotional pressure on you if you are the one black woman on staff.

  • The Real Skinny... (Score:3, Informative)

    by airrage (514164) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:29PM (#5035724) Homepage Journal
    Okay I work for a company on the list. And it's sorta rigged...well sort of. Okay, one thing they want to know is 'How much money is spent per capita at the employee store?'. The point is that companies that sell lot's of company-logo golf balls must be a great place to work. Well since every company know this is coming, they make departments buy like normal, everyday stuff like paper-clips and toner from the company store. This inflates the company store reciepts and no one is the wiser. This game is played over and over again to varying degrees in all aspects of this little adventure, like Enron with GAAP.
  • Electronic Arts? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sorry, but I can't buy that for one moment. They have a long history of finding bright eyed yound programmers, exploiting them, under paying them, and then shit-canning them after they've abused them and turned them against the entire video gaming industry.

    You don't believe me? Do a web-search. Nearly every Game-Industry Horror Story you're likely to find comes from someone who once worked for EA.
  • by EverDense (575518) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:31PM (#5035744) Homepage
    or are "American Cast Iron Pipe" debt collectors?
  • by Dougthebug (625695) <{ude.cscu} {ta} {yargd}> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:32PM (#5035757) Homepage
    Microsoft's hiring process:
    1,312 New Jobs this last year.
    360,000 Applicants...
    Uh, thats a .364% hiring rate, or one job for every 274 applicants, I'm not sure if I like my chances.

    Also:
    #63 LensCrafters, while not a tech company, this sounded pretty cool:
    "Sunglass Hut, a new sister company, joined this year's Visionfest, where managers and execs donned white gloves, top hats, and bow ties to welcome employees, park their cars, and open doors. "
  • Semi-startup? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Arjuna Theban (143564)
    From the Xilinx corporate information page:

    "Founded in 1984 and headquartered in San Jose, Calif., Xilinx employs approximately 2,600 people worldwide."

    " Publicly traded on NASDAQ o Symbol: XLNX Fiscal Year 2002 revenues: $1.02 billion; net income, $52.2 million"

    May I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?
  • by doc_traig (453913) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @06:52PM (#5035848) Homepage Journal
    Yikes... Rob and the boys must not have provided terribly high marks.

    - DDT
  • by DakotaSandstone (638375) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:44PM (#5035952)
    I work for one of the companies that's been on this list for several years. Yeah, it's OK working here, but this list is overrated and sounds more important than it is, IMHO.

    Since almost 40% of the companies who try to get on this thing do, I really view it as "pay Fortune Magazine some money, and we'll give you a nice-sounding list we'll put you on that you can use as a recruiting bullet item."

    And yes, oh yes, we DO use it as a selling point in recruiting. A LOT. We even have one of those nice velcro signs we stick onto the recruiting booth at career fairs for this thing.

  • by Mith (43921) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @07:59PM (#5036032) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone wonder why a previously #1 ranked company (Southwest Airlines [southwest.com]) isn't even in the top 100 anymore? It's because the application process took so long and involved so many people (voluntarily) that they decided they would rather use those resources to do what they do best, serve their customers, not filling out "pat me on the back" applications.
  • Is this real? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @08:52PM (#5036456) Homepage

    I'm guessing that the article was written by the Fortune Magazine PR department. Friends of mine at Intel are routinely overworked, because Intel will not hire enough people.

    Remember, Fortune is a "what the rich want you to think" company.
  • by heroine (1220) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:24PM (#5036651) Homepage
    Lots of electrical engineering and non-technical companies. No pure software engineering once again. In fact I've never seen a software engineering firm listed in this study. Of the hardware/software companies, the reason they get on this list is probably their hardware side. I wonder why software is so hard to manage effectively. Is it because you don't have a reliable measurement of employee productivity? Is is because software is hard to modularize?

  • Nestle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peterpi (585134) on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @06:24AM (#5038773)
    "At Nestle, for example, many people could make more money elsewhere. But employees in the bucolic Swiss town of Vevey like being with a company whose mission is to feed people around the world"

    Feed this, muther fucker [bbc.co.uk]

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...